£1500 for an f/4 standard zoom!!! Seriously, this lens should be pretty simple and cheap to manufacture (L-class enhancements notwithstanding). I expect that its street price will fall closer to the £1200 mark, but for me that is still 50% over-priced; even DPReview seem pretty incredulous.

This lens can be as sharp as it likes, I am still not interested. For me, the whole point of accepting the compromise of an f/4 lens is versatility and it lacks both versatility (24-105L) and speed (24-70 L II). Sorry, but a crappy semi-macro mode doesn't do it for me.

Canon would have been better served updating the 24-105L or I suspect, for the consumer market, the 28-135 IS. No doubt this lens will be good at what it does, but if being a good lightweight travel lens is all that is, then I would suggest a full frame DSLR is the wrong choice of system for most of the target audience. Here's looking forwards to the new 70-200 f/4L IS II; price £1700!

Nassen0f

i would rather save a little more for the 2.8 then, and since that will never happen, Thanks canon, for dissapointing me again...

i would have understood 800 or maybe even 900, less and less money is gonna go into lenses in the next cupple of years it seems. And Canon is whining "We cant even make a billion anymore" Pfff, no wonder... Shame on you Canon, Shame on you!

I get that a lens can be expensive to make and so on, but lots of other companys sell their items at a loss in the start just to have the price low and get more sold, then they start earning money when the process is larger and easier. But it seems that Canon wants a 500 dollar premium just to call it a L lens..

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens. So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens. So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

Neuro, I have a lot of respect for you, but this lens is ridiculously overpriced. Maybe some people expect to pay $1500 for an f4 lens, but I think that's absurd. The Canon 24-70 2.8 II should have been $1800 or less, and this F4 lens should be no more than $1200 starting price. This Macro thing should be a perk for people paying 1000 dollars for a lens, not a reason to double the price of the current 24-105(which was on sale for $750 just a few weeks ago.) I don't believe this lens takes the place of the 100L.

Bunch of self-entitled whiners. People keep forgetting electronics are usually expensive when they first come out and the prices eventually drop. You do not need to buy these lenses right now or ever if you don't want to.

I'm not whining at all. The truth is, If this lens was 700 dollars I still wouldn't buy it. I already switched to Nikon a few months ago and this only makes the decision I made that much better. I'm simply laughing at how ridiculously out of touch Canon's prices have been over the past couple 18 months.

Exactly. It may be much better than you would normally get with a 24-70 but it isn't going to replace an actual macro lens. Like someone else said above this feature is a perk for someone paying $1,000 for a lens, not an incentive to pay $1500. A used 100L macro will server the buyer MUCH MUCH better.

This may seem like bashing, but if your photography work includes macro shots and you don't have a bag that can hold your macro lens then what are you thinking??

This lens seems like a prosumer type lens that is simply over priced. Would it be good at video for pros? Sure... but before I paid a premium for this lens I would put the money into a stabilizer and fly all of my lenses instead of paying for IS in this one lens.

Just my thoughts but here's another lens that will make me look at products other than canon, and used canon lenses.

IIRC people complained about the 15-85mm price, but it's really worth the money, so I'll wait and see. From the description of the 35mm, I'm wondering why it doesn't get an "L" label, is it because they only carry one L at a time?

The 24-70 actually makes sense to me now; if they'd have given the 24-105 the same workover/upgrade, we'd be staring at $2200 to $2400. Then we'd have complaining for four pages . . . oh wait.

In all seriousness, a lot of people here treat MSRP like it's built in stone. Anyone that can't get a 5DmkIII for around $2900 with a light amount of work/patience isn't trying very hard, so let's stop pretending like these aren't going to be bundled/adjusted.

The 40mm pancake can be had for $150 recently, so let's wait and see where the price drops come before we wail, lament, and move to Nikon. With this announcement, no one's gear burst into flames, we need to stop acting like it.

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens. So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

Neuro, I have a lot of respect for you, but this lens is ridiculously overpriced. Maybe some people expect to pay $1500 for an f4 lens, but I think that's absurd. The Canon 24-70 2.8 II should have been $1800 or less, and this F4 lens should be no more than $1200 starting price. This Macro thing should be a perk for people paying 1000 dollars for a lens, not a reason to double the price of the current 24-105(which was on sale for $750 just a few weeks ago.) I don't believe this lens takes the place of the 100L.

You misunderstood Neuro's post. He was saying "WTM-F'nF" to Canon's supposed belief that the macro function makes this lens a bargain.

Canon: "...a maximum magnification of 0.7x – reducing the need for photographers to carry a dedicated macro lens. So, what you short-sighted complainers fail to understand is that while you may think this lens seems expensive, if you add up the cost of the 24-105L and 100L Macro, this lens is significantly cheaper, and thus it's a real bargain!"

Me: "WTM-F'nF?!?"

Neuro, I have a lot of respect for you, but this lens is ridiculously overpriced.

I know. What part of WTM-F'nF?!? makes you think I think it's reasonable?